Sword of Honor wrote:

---

The botton line in the "animals are homosexual issue" is that animals are not rational beings.

I'm not disagreeing with you on this point. In fact, that was my point: The document you provided talks at length of 'irrational animal behavior' and essentially determines that such irrational behavior is 'immoral' for a rational man. If an animal has no rationality at all, then how can he determine which specific activities within the animal kingdome are "irrational" for the animals? He simply can't. If animals are deprived of rationality, then all of their behavior would be, by definition, "irrational," or in the least, not bound by rationality at all. I would agree this is probably true for the vast majority of the species. But if you define an animal as a being of 'non-existent rationality,' and then go on to depict certain specific sets of behavior as 'irrational' then this can only be a rationalisation based on the observers bias, in this case here, based on what he feels is 'immoral behavior in man' as stated in his premise .

Male animals humping other male animals are NOT "homosexual."

Perhaps not, but it certainly would not be defined as heterosexual behavior, and is only indicative that homosexual behavior does exist within the animal world, regardless of any 'motivation' you want to place on it. Homosexual human males are quite capable of mating too, doesn't make them straight.

Despite my strong disagreements with the text, I will say it has one great merit in that it reminds us of a very important fact: Animal behavior is not invariably a good source of information to explain human behavior. On that point, he's certainly right. I'm not about to go dog-humping...